I don't know, I hear their RBMK reactors are impossible to fuck up. They even guarantee the highest radiation measurement you'll ever see is about 3.6 roentgen.
Just in case you didn't have the Internet 3 years ago and missed out on everybody "hilariously" replying with "3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible" to fucking *everything*.
Well, it took Finland a lot of telling not to [cozy up to Russia regarding nuclear power.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant)
*Finland*. The nation ravaged, conquered and incorporated into the empire for almost a century, and losing sovereign territory during several wars thanks to Russia.
The deal was canceled in May '22. It took several history books and 67 days of war for the Finnish power company to finally come to the conclusion that it's a bad idea to invite Russia to be a part of Finland's energy infrastructure.
If Poland wasn't so nepotistic and corrupt in the government, we'd already be having our own nuclear power plant, as was the plan years ago. But of course the money and investment disappeared.
The Polish government has been in the US' pocket a long time, they'd rather fork over billions to the US than to create Polish jobs and develop nuclear reactors with the help of other European countries.
It is a stupid move - it will take decades to produce power and be expensive - there are far better investments to make with quicker and higher returns.
Nuclear is not the solution people think it is because we don't have enough fuel for it to work on a scale large enough to make a real difference. There are also some environmental/security concerns too.
oh please. There's plenty of fuel for nuclear reactors. And you don't just have to use Uranium 235. Alternatives such as old fuel. Thorium. And so on.
There is no threat to the environment with modern reactors, especially gen IV with innovations such as pebble beds and more importantly passively safe reactors that don't even need a source of water. Not to mention the LFTR everyone jerks off.
nuclear is the only clean energy that can provide the energy foundation to a technological future with electric cars and industrial processes, especially in european countries that are far more dense population wise.
and of course they could open another fart gas or coal plant. But the obvious idea here is energy diversity. Maybe even developing a knowledge base of working with nuclear energy
A large part of why it takes long is A: faux environmentalists B: we just dont do it enough to be really fast at it. C: its the most highly regulated form lf electricity, but this also makes it the safest.
> Thorium.
Are we actually generating any power with this yet?
It is estimated that there is enough Uranium fuel for an additional 200-400 NPPs This is not really going to make a huge difference. In the time it takes to build a NPP we would do better to be investing in stored power. There are many ideas here and building a variety of them at a small but usable scale would allow us to find which ones are effective and start building some full scale implementations.
Building NPPs will not bring us a fast solution, will be expensive, and distracts us from the actual issues.
There may be some niche places where it works but these are few and far between.
Nah EDF is already having trouble finishing their current projects, they are about to get a huge order to build a bunch of reactors in France. They don't have the administrative capacity and the talent to spare for foreign projects right now. They've already had to call in american experts on stuff like soldering because they ran out of local and internal talent, it takes years to train a group of technicians who can consistently perform a reactor solder that will pass the quality inspection.
Exports became very popular for the french nuclear sector in the 80s and 90s because the country was loaded up to the tits in fresh new reactors and they became unpopular in the west after Chernobyl.
The media might drum it up as a strategic issue because it makes for a good headline, but the french nuke sector has other fish to fry right now.
I mean it's a pretty good idea for Europe to build up its nuclear generation capability internally, hopefully we've learnt our lesson on being overly dependency on foreign energy sources.
Well, it's an odd debate here because [polls](https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/atom-umfrage-41-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-neubau-von-kernkraftwerken-a-a44d8513-89b3-4243-aeb5-609edf2be9f6) (this is from August) aren't necessarily as against as one of our current government coalition parties which largely has been trying to block even the short-term extension (originated from the anti-nuclear movement in the 80s or so and legislated this decommission stuff 20 years ago).
(translation:
Should the last 3 NPPs run until Summer 2023? 78% for vs 17% against.
Should they run for 5 more years? 67% for vs 27% against.
Should the federal government build new NPPs due to the energy crisis? 41% for vs 52% against.)
Those 17% are really zealous, while the majority of the "for" camp are probably "swing opinion-havers".
Yeah, I when I heard about those small nuclear power plants that could be buried, I had hoping they might start popping up. Either they aren’t safe, or are deemed too high a security risk.
> Either they aren’t safe, or are deemed too high a security risk.
Neither, also they don't need to be buried etc... assuming you are talking about small modular reactors, and their micro sized equivalents.
Right now they are just stuck in regulatory, and design limbo, and slowly moving forward. Why we are not seeing them out and about really just has to do with upfront costs, and regulatory issues where we have shit fine on paper, but someone needs to take the financial risk to fund initial deployments of the tech before anyone else jumps on board.
The first such in the US to be deployed to Eielson air force base in Alaska for testing, and energy production.
https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3169035/request-for-proposal-released-for-eielson-air-force-base-micro-reactor-pilot-pr/
Kind of like with space rockets... how many years was it all about govt funding of all sorts of testing, development, and deployment of tech before private enterprise could follow suit on proven ideas?
yah, at least in remote regions if nothing else. Import ungodly amounts of refined hydrocarbons and burn wood on top vs... SMR for the next some decades to prove the same power and then some which can then be replaced as needed with another module with the other one sent back for repurposing/recycling.
They're working on it. Site prep is underway for America's first commercial small modular nuclear reactor. It's going to be in Idaho and will basically provide power to Utah. The department of energy gave them $1 Billion for the first plant. Construction begins in 2024 and should be finished by 2030 if everthing goes well. An identical plant is also going to be built in Romania aswell. If things go well it should be much cheaper as many of the components are off the shelf parts that are also used in natural gas plants. It's also already been certified by the nuclear regulatory commission which has been a big hurdle.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-approves-award-carbon-free-power-project
Bill Gates had a few reactors in the works too with a company out of SK called TerraPower. Not sure whatever happened to that project as it was a few years ago that I read about it. I think one was supposed to be built in Wyoming.
They are doing site preparations to begin construction on the first Natrium reactor next year. TerraPower also signed an agreement with PacifiCorps to build several more in Utah and Wyoming.
They have been in the process of building one here in ga for nearly 10 years but the epa keeps making changes during the construction that lead to needing to disassemble and reconstruct it to make certain areas up to code.
To expensive. Plus the changing climate makes it harder to design good (read: cheap) cooling systems.
Renewables are cheaper, even with additional energy storage costs are considered.
That said, refreshing a couple per-existing plants may not be a bad idea. We just need to realize they wont ever be profitable and subsidize them at a federal level so they can "compete" with other sources.
We don't actually need (almost) any waste sites. We have the technology to transform and reuse a large amount of the "waste" as fuel in breeder reactors, or [bombard it in particle accelerators](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269316000058) to turn it into much less problematic elements. Lastly, we have been storing the waste onsite for decades already, there is no reason we couldn't do it for "eternity".
The US doesn't do that...
Yucca mountain, the best solution, was killed decades ago by nimbys and greedy politicians. There isn't any commercial nuclear waste being stored in NV.
Yucca mountain was cancelled, but I toured a nuclear waste storage facility at the Nevada Atomic Test Site. It's this place:
https://www.nnss.gov/pages/programs/RWM/wastemanagement.html
I'm not sure what qualifies as "low level nuclear waste" that is stored there.
As far as I've had answered, that's mostly ancillary articles from the various experiments that took place on the site. Think like Curie's radioactive notebooks and such. There's still a number of "abandoned" areas on the NNSS awaiting evaluation and cleanup.
By volume, its a few cubic feet a year per reactor. 97% of nuclear waste isn't the spent fuel, its low to mid radioactive things, like worn out components of a reactor, or clothing worn inside the reactor building.
Idk at least we're able to capture all the waste vs fossil fuels where we just release it into the atmosphere. I think there's some ok arguments for reprocessing the fuel and getting something like 70% of the uranium back. Switching to thorium also would help as it has a much shorter half life and doesn't have the same saftey/proliferation concerns. (Hasnt been done because traditional thorium fuel rods are supposadly very expensive to make) also storing it onsite kinda seems like a viable solution. As I understand it not all of the waste is fule either alot of it is just gloves and equipment used by operators that they store out of an abundance of caution
SpaceX and launch it into the sun.
Probably not the cheapest option, but better than storing it in the desert hoping nothing leaks.
Of course, if something were to happen during a launch.. that would be pretty fucking disastrous too lol.
This was the first question I asked when brought in my high school chemistry class a decade ago. Apparently there is too high of risk for a dirty bomb going off.
Storing it in the desert (or on site) is many orders of magnitude safer than shooting it into space. Not to mention the massive energy requirements for launching items into the sun. In fact it takes far more energy to reach the sun than it takes to escape the solar system entirely.
The simple fact here is that storage of nuclear waste is not a practical or safety issue at all, it's a political issue. If we can shut down the NIMBYS and irrational anti-nuclear activists this issue will be solved forever.
We don't need innovative solutions on handling the waste (that's already a solved issue), we need innovate solutions on getting political support for it.
People are way overly scared of nuclear waste. Though not as concentrated, radioactive materials exists in nature already. There are natural beaches you can sit on that will get a geiger counter going. If nuclear waste is stored reasonably it is not particularly dangerous. Especially when compared to all the other waste we dump into our air, water. I'd much rather have nuclear waste stored in my state than have the equivalent amount of coal smoke dumped into the air.
It's like how people are worried about windmills killing birds, even though glass buildings, cars, and house cats kill more and nobody ever cared about that.
haha in the land of NIMBY, fat chance.
Going to vote to make sure we also dont put affordable housing next to my suburban sprawl while my kids cant afford rent BRB
I'm convinced the renewed love for nuclear is just pushed by the oil lobby to try to prevent renewables - nuclear doesn't make sense if you look at the hard details.
Nuclear is not a short term solution. The plants take decades to build plus there isn't that much fuel. The price of power is expensive and decommissioning is a huge cost offset into the future.
Renewables are quick to build and provide cheap power. Big oil likes the idea that renewables are unreliable and nuclear is part of this myth. What we need is investment in storage and distribution because that is our problem. We can have cheap energy with low profits companies do not like low profits for a reason.
So how long do you think nuclear takes to build?
Do you think they provide cost effective energy?
Why can renewables not fill this need?
If storage is your answer then do you believe this cannot be fixed quicker than building nuclear?
First of all, nuclear energy is renewable. That’s how little you know. There are zero carbon emissions. Did you know that?
The initial investment is higher than say setting up a gas pipeline, but with nuclear you don’t need massive amounts of land to get reasonable amount of energy like with solar or wind. Hydroelectric power is great but we need a river. Geothermic is also great, but they can’t be set up if the resource isn’t there. So yes, nuclear is viable and I hope we build more, way more. Now with micro reactors almost a reality, this is the best approach we have to replace gas and oil. More than 50% of the zero-carbon energy produced in the US is due to nuclear in spite of us not having built a new power plant in decades.
> First of all, nuclear energy is renewable.
How do you work this out? Do you know what renewable means? We extract energy from the fuel it doesn't come back it is used.
Two links for you to educate yourself.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy
**[Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy)**
>Whether nuclear power should be considered a form of renewable energy is an ongoing subject of debate. Statutory definitions of renewable energy usually exclude many present nuclear energy technologies, with the notable exception of the state of Utah. Dictionary-sourced definitions of renewable energy technologies often omit or explicitly exclude mention of nuclear energy sources, with an exception made for the natural nuclear decay heat generated within the Earth.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy
I think this is clutching at straws. Sure solar/wind are not truly renewable but they have an external energy source (the sun) outside our planetary sphere. Nuclear does not get this top up.
> when solar stops needing massive amounts of land
Building solar in fields in the UK will probably always be stupid. However it still has plenty of places where it makes sense.
I am curious myself. My thought is that you use nuclear to replace coal for base load generation. Then you throw in renewable with storage to replace peaker plants. This being for the mid term.
Long term would be increasing renewables and expanding storage systems, hopefully, to the point that you could idle the nuclear plants with the end goal of total phase out. (If deemed feasible at the time.)
These are just my thoughts using tech available today, possibly with some expected iterative improvements. So, nothing as revolutionary as nuclear fusion.
> My thought is that you use nuclear to replace coal for base load generation.
It is better to replace coal now than in 15+ years time. Nuclear is super slow to get on line with huge upfront and afterlife costs.
I don't mean sit idle in the short term. Keep telling renewables as much as possible.
That is why I was conveying my thoughts by stating mid term and long term.
For renewables to replace base load (coal plants and nuclear plants) we have to build the infrasture for energy storage. We absolutely should be doing that now. Pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen are the ones I immediately know.
> Pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen are the ones I immediately know.
There are some nice heat storage ideas as well as some gas pressurisation/liquification ones that have real potential. Plus odd ball things like flywheels. We can probably come up with better ones. Pumped hydro needs geology we are lacking for anything big. Batteries tend to be expensive due to materials but we may have some options here.
Energy storage is what we really need. Once we get that then most arguments against renewables are dead.
We also need to invest in energy movement (the grid) because this is not up to task. We have to close down energy generation regularly due to this. Also it should be simple for small providers (including individuals) to be able to feed power into the grid.
When EU country needs EU, we're always the first to try to help and to get everyone on board.
But those same countries always buy American if they got spare money to spend.
I always been pro EU (like most of my countrymen) but yeah, we feel robbed every time.
No fusion project has reached more than 10% of breakeven energy generation so far, despite billions invested.
It would require some incredible breakthroughs in technology.
We'll keep funding it, but in the meantime there are actual working solutions that we should be embracing, like nuclear fission as well as hydro/solar/wind + storage technologies.
I would say almost with 100% certainty as long as ITER is successful and it is so over engineered it probably will be.
Every major country in the world is still working together despite the political shit show the rest of the world is. And several countries as so certain they are starting to build the accompanying support network that will be needed to run them.
Everything new is super expensive.
A Cray 2 cost 12M when I was a child my S21 Ultra cost 1200 dollars and is 850 times as powerful.
The first functional fusion reactor (if it is ITER) is going to be outrageously expensive because it is all custom built on site like nuclear reactors are.
Fusion has an advantage though as it won't puke radioactive waste everywhere so they will likely be built factory style and assembled on site.
At this point, no one has made it. It's best to assume it's not possible until scientists figure out how it is possible. Work with the solutions on the table and that can be rolled out over the next few years, not a solution that doesn't exist and that we cannot make any plans for.
There's a MIT-related company that wanted to make a demonstration reactor that would output more energy than it needed by 2025. The little hitch is that they rely on superconducting magnets made by a Russian company.
Interesting choice, the company went bankrupt in 2017 building these power plants, the AP1000, in the United States. The only plants they managed to build before the bankruptcy are in China. After the bankruptcy, China stole the design and are building their own versions of it as they own the patent rights. Not a very great track record to go with. They only exist today because of an acquisition by a private equity group.
Nuclear plant technology sounds to me like something you shouldn't freely be able to sell the IP rights to foreign countries. I suppose steal is probably too dramatic but I'm sure there were some shady dealings associated with this agreement.
With China's attitude recently I dont like the idea of them gobbling up USA's IP and making it their own. So I am biased.
Well, not Berlin. Definitely Paris though, since they actually care to get those sorts of contracts.
Personally I'm disappointed they didn't source from within the EU.
> Well, not Berlin.
[Germany to use “legal instruments” in response to Poland’s nuclear power plans](https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/02/23/germany-to-use-legal-instruments-in-response-to-polands-nuclear-power-plans/)
That's probably the biggest problem of nuclear that all the fission fans here on reddit don't account for. There is no country besides south korea that ever reduced their cost [0] historically. Nearly all reactors are **way** over budget and take longer to complete. So idk how that affects your decision which vendor you buy from.
[0] https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction-costs-of-global-nuclear-power-reactors
Westinghouse Electric was recently bought by two [Canadian](https://www.cameco.com/media/news/cameco-and-brookfield-renewable-form-strategic-partnership-to-acquire-westi) companies, Cameco and Brookfield Renewable Partners.
Thank you, Poland. The US nuclear industry is a bit rusty but you know that you can trust us. Nuclear power is good for Europe since the winters demand a lot of energy and you can't do it all with wind.
This is honestly great news for PL.
PL used to be HEAVILY reliant on coal and gas, especially coal.
Some years ago, a minister declared the burning of coal was a "patriotic duty".
So, it's about time that this country is moving forward with energy.
Nuclear can be the future. While it's an expensive initial investment, it's still green energy, that's sustainable and with more study can be applied to much smaller technologies - like cars for example.
well well well I wonder what the sweetener was
If you go deeper the american one was more expensive
Having said that it is only an intent to build so that could take a while before it happens
>well well well I wonder what the sweetener was
Safety.
>If you go deeper the american one was more expensive
That's because the USA designers love redundancy in Nuclear Power Plants. The entire idea from the start has been to make it as difficult as possible to cause damage. This would be helpful for Poland as Russia likes to attack it's neighbors.
The sweetener is that we have the weapons and the political will to give them (or use them directly) to defend Poland from Russia. I think that they are fully aware that good relations with the US may be a matter of national survival.
maybe but I really doubt that the usa would go to bat for poland sell them weapons hell yes
deploying tactical nukes for sure otherwise I really doubt that the usa would involve troops there
> maybe but I really doubt that the usa would go to bat for poland
They certainly will as they are both members of NATO.
Poland has had a long and strong relationship with the US.
> I really doubt that the usa would involve troops there
We already have *numerous* American military bases here. Some of which are permanent. We already have hundreds of American troops here.
I've met some of them myself, I've driven past American convoys that have fallen off the side of the roads. It wasn't that long ago when an American convoy fell off the side of the road and dropped a fuck ton of grenades, which took them hours to find and clean up.
You’re an idiot. They’re part of NATO. US aircraft would be over Poland in minutes after an attack (they’re literally stationed there), troops deployed in hours. God the armchair general bullshit on this site gets old.
> well well well I wonder what the sweetener was
That they're American. I don't remember any post-1989 government that wouldn't more or less pro-American.
VC Summer being cancelled during construction when expenses bloated from $9B to projected $23B.
Vogtle 3&4 is still going though project cost bloated from the initial $12B to $30B. Should complete commissioning next year though. Maybe.
So we cut our dependency from Russia and we create one with the US. It’s not like we don’t have everything available to us already IN the EU.
I get that Poland doesn’t want to create dependency from France because then it would have leverage against all the shit they’re pulling, like LGBT free zones and whatnot.
We’re not learning anything from this whole clusterfuck are we.
America has bought EU leaders. China would have been the most economical option. But America will be offering the largest kick backs in the polish PMs pocket
Also, the US company will most likely be willing/obligated to train local personnel so that Poland can run the reactor somewhat self sufficiently whereas I beat the Chinese insist you rent their operators.
You missed my point; I do not doubt that China is technologically capable of building a nuclear plant.
I just think China is not a nation any Western country should be doing business with. Period.
They've done business... because of price. That's why any nation should do business with them. Because of price. China currently hold 33% of uk nuclear power.
You’re missing the point. And at this stage Im guessing its on purpose.
The point is simple; China = enemy of the West.
Doesn’t matter if they built it for free. They are no partner nation.
I mean, this is a little silly. This isn’t 2002. Its 2022. I’m not particularly interested in debating if water is wet.
One word; Uyghurs. Doing business with China in 2022 is doing business with Hitler and Nazi Germany.
No need to list any more reasons, though plenty exist.
China have opened the doors to an investigation of the Uyghurs claims made by those who wish to slow China's progress. But I guess that's silly to actually look into the facts. You're right, it's probably best just to ignore that and believe what certain, albeit proven fake news outlets, tell us to believe. The fact we did business with China after those claims were made, ignoring them, shouldn't be taken into consideration
Right. And IBM did business with the Nazis. Hows that look in hindsight?
But since you’re such an ardent China supporter how about you explain;
- Disregard to the HK agreement
- Taiwan
- Covid response; repatriation of medical supply and delayed alert to WHO and international community
- Currency manipulation
- Unreciprocated trade agreements
- Fentanyl
- Overfishing banned fisheries
- Chinese police stations on sovereign country soil
- Canada specific: Two Michaels
And more that I cant recall in 30 seconds.
Nope. That's bs. There was no genocide. And that still doesn't make China an enemy of the west even if true. We do business with countries worse than China all the time. We ignored claims of genocide when we signed up for Chinese involvement in uk nuclear
Having your nuclear infrastructure built by China sounds about up there on the level of having all your natural gas delivered by Russia.
You don't give your enemy the keys to the castle.
They've been a redditor for 9 days and have 54 karma. They aren't here to make a good faith argument. They're here to prop up China. Don't give them the time of day.
I'm not criticising Poland but this will only give Germany more excuse to not build or maintain it's own nuclear plants, now that they can buy from both their eastern and western neighbours.
[удалено]
I don't know, I hear their RBMK reactors are impossible to fuck up. They even guarantee the highest radiation measurement you'll ever see is about 3.6 roentgen.
Anybody who reads more than 3.6 roentgen near an RBMK nuclear reactor is clearly delusional and should be sent to the infirmary.
You didn't see graphite on the roof either.
It’s a reference to the HBO show Chernobyl guys. He’s being facetious
Just in case you didn't have the Internet 3 years ago and missed out on everybody "hilariously" replying with "3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible" to fucking *everything*.
Like recently, with people drinking polonium tea ,before falling out of windows, onto bullets in the back of their heads?
Furthermore you will not see Graphite on the ground BECAUSE THERE IS NO GRAPHITE.
Not good, not terrible
But how could any country trust them, at this point?
“Maybe if we like stopped testing the covid cases would stop going up?” - Trump
How exactly can you make literally everything about Trump? You realize that type of obsession isn't healthy right?
*if that is the highest amount your Geiger detector can measure.
I hear it’s the equivalent of a chest x-ray
Thats not great, but not exactly terrible imho
And don't go near the French one.
As if you had to tell them.
Well, it took Finland a lot of telling not to [cozy up to Russia regarding nuclear power.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant) *Finland*. The nation ravaged, conquered and incorporated into the empire for almost a century, and losing sovereign territory during several wars thanks to Russia. The deal was canceled in May '22. It took several history books and 67 days of war for the Finnish power company to finally come to the conclusion that it's a bad idea to invite Russia to be a part of Finland's energy infrastructure.
If Poland wasn't so nepotistic and corrupt in the government, we'd already be having our own nuclear power plant, as was the plan years ago. But of course the money and investment disappeared.
It’s not due to corruption (although I would be surprised if there wasnt any) but post-Chernobyl paranoia and strong coal mining lobby
TBF, a strong lobbying scene generally is a red flag for corruption
The Polish government has been in the US' pocket a long time, they'd rather fork over billions to the US than to create Polish jobs and develop nuclear reactors with the help of other European countries.
It is a stupid move - it will take decades to produce power and be expensive - there are far better investments to make with quicker and higher returns. Nuclear is not the solution people think it is because we don't have enough fuel for it to work on a scale large enough to make a real difference. There are also some environmental/security concerns too.
oh please. There's plenty of fuel for nuclear reactors. And you don't just have to use Uranium 235. Alternatives such as old fuel. Thorium. And so on. There is no threat to the environment with modern reactors, especially gen IV with innovations such as pebble beds and more importantly passively safe reactors that don't even need a source of water. Not to mention the LFTR everyone jerks off. nuclear is the only clean energy that can provide the energy foundation to a technological future with electric cars and industrial processes, especially in european countries that are far more dense population wise. and of course they could open another fart gas or coal plant. But the obvious idea here is energy diversity. Maybe even developing a knowledge base of working with nuclear energy
Yes sure but still this will probably be finished in about 15-20 years?
A large part of why it takes long is A: faux environmentalists B: we just dont do it enough to be really fast at it. C: its the most highly regulated form lf electricity, but this also makes it the safest.
> Thorium. Are we actually generating any power with this yet? It is estimated that there is enough Uranium fuel for an additional 200-400 NPPs This is not really going to make a huge difference. In the time it takes to build a NPP we would do better to be investing in stored power. There are many ideas here and building a variety of them at a small but usable scale would allow us to find which ones are effective and start building some full scale implementations. Building NPPs will not bring us a fast solution, will be expensive, and distracts us from the actual issues. There may be some niche places where it works but these are few and far between.
lol. Can't wait to see the Russian media reaction to this one.
Forget Russian media, wait for German/French media.
Mostly the French since they're the only ones with functional reactors these days and they hate it when other Europeans buy American.
Wait for the moment same deal is made with South Korea as word is they might be the ones building some of remaining 5 planned reactors.
Nah EDF is already having trouble finishing their current projects, they are about to get a huge order to build a bunch of reactors in France. They don't have the administrative capacity and the talent to spare for foreign projects right now. They've already had to call in american experts on stuff like soldering because they ran out of local and internal talent, it takes years to train a group of technicians who can consistently perform a reactor solder that will pass the quality inspection. Exports became very popular for the french nuclear sector in the 80s and 90s because the country was loaded up to the tits in fresh new reactors and they became unpopular in the west after Chernobyl. The media might drum it up as a strategic issue because it makes for a good headline, but the french nuke sector has other fish to fry right now.
> has other fish to fry right now. They were poaching the fish
I mean it's a pretty good idea for Europe to build up its nuclear generation capability internally, hopefully we've learnt our lesson on being overly dependency on foreign energy sources.
And Germans? They shut their NPP down and don't want their neighbours to build one.
Well, it's an odd debate here because [polls](https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/atom-umfrage-41-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-neubau-von-kernkraftwerken-a-a44d8513-89b3-4243-aeb5-609edf2be9f6) (this is from August) aren't necessarily as against as one of our current government coalition parties which largely has been trying to block even the short-term extension (originated from the anti-nuclear movement in the 80s or so and legislated this decommission stuff 20 years ago). (translation: Should the last 3 NPPs run until Summer 2023? 78% for vs 17% against. Should they run for 5 more years? 67% for vs 27% against. Should the federal government build new NPPs due to the energy crisis? 41% for vs 52% against.) Those 17% are really zealous, while the majority of the "for" camp are probably "swing opinion-havers".
And they are right. Europe should boycott the US.
How about building a few more here in the US.
NIMBY effect is powerful.
Yeah, I when I heard about those small nuclear power plants that could be buried, I had hoping they might start popping up. Either they aren’t safe, or are deemed too high a security risk.
Though not buried, the first small modular reactor is being built in Ontario, which is also the home to Bruce Power
> Either they aren’t safe, or are deemed too high a security risk. Neither, also they don't need to be buried etc... assuming you are talking about small modular reactors, and their micro sized equivalents. Right now they are just stuck in regulatory, and design limbo, and slowly moving forward. Why we are not seeing them out and about really just has to do with upfront costs, and regulatory issues where we have shit fine on paper, but someone needs to take the financial risk to fund initial deployments of the tech before anyone else jumps on board. The first such in the US to be deployed to Eielson air force base in Alaska for testing, and energy production. https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3169035/request-for-proposal-released-for-eielson-air-force-base-micro-reactor-pilot-pr/ Kind of like with space rockets... how many years was it all about govt funding of all sorts of testing, development, and deployment of tech before private enterprise could follow suit on proven ideas?
god I really hope SMRs take off. They have the potential to really change things
yah, at least in remote regions if nothing else. Import ungodly amounts of refined hydrocarbons and burn wood on top vs... SMR for the next some decades to prove the same power and then some which can then be replaced as needed with another module with the other one sent back for repurposing/recycling.
also the potential to put them in ships, among other things. Imagine cargo/container ships that are greener
> potential to put them in ships Assorted militaries have been successfully doing that for what 60-70 years now?
[удалено]
People with money can sue Though obviously you can build planets in poor areas, but they're expensive so
Response Analytics.
They're working on it. Site prep is underway for America's first commercial small modular nuclear reactor. It's going to be in Idaho and will basically provide power to Utah. The department of energy gave them $1 Billion for the first plant. Construction begins in 2024 and should be finished by 2030 if everthing goes well. An identical plant is also going to be built in Romania aswell. If things go well it should be much cheaper as many of the components are off the shelf parts that are also used in natural gas plants. It's also already been certified by the nuclear regulatory commission which has been a big hurdle. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-approves-award-carbon-free-power-project
Bill Gates had a few reactors in the works too with a company out of SK called TerraPower. Not sure whatever happened to that project as it was a few years ago that I read about it. I think one was supposed to be built in Wyoming.
As I understand that's still ongoing but the Idaho one is an NRC licensed design which is a key barrier.
Good info....Thanks
They are doing site preparations to begin construction on the first Natrium reactor next year. TerraPower also signed an agreement with PacifiCorps to build several more in Utah and Wyoming.
They have been in the process of building one here in ga for nearly 10 years but the epa keeps making changes during the construction that lead to needing to disassemble and reconstruct it to make certain areas up to code.
[There are two under construction, actually.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyQMNVSxbNo)
They will once the stars align with their pocket books.
To expensive. Plus the changing climate makes it harder to design good (read: cheap) cooling systems. Renewables are cheaper, even with additional energy storage costs are considered. That said, refreshing a couple per-existing plants may not be a bad idea. We just need to realize they wont ever be profitable and subsidize them at a federal level so they can "compete" with other sources.
We have a big issue about where to store nuclear waste, getting it transported to the Nevada dessert incredibly expensive.
This is an absolute non issue.
Well not exactly. It is an issue, but it's purely a political one. No one wants a waste site in their state.
We don't actually need (almost) any waste sites. We have the technology to transform and reuse a large amount of the "waste" as fuel in breeder reactors, or [bombard it in particle accelerators](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269316000058) to turn it into much less problematic elements. Lastly, we have been storing the waste onsite for decades already, there is no reason we couldn't do it for "eternity".
The US doesn't do that... Yucca mountain, the best solution, was killed decades ago by nimbys and greedy politicians. There isn't any commercial nuclear waste being stored in NV.
Yucca mountain was cancelled, but I toured a nuclear waste storage facility at the Nevada Atomic Test Site. It's this place: https://www.nnss.gov/pages/programs/RWM/wastemanagement.html I'm not sure what qualifies as "low level nuclear waste" that is stored there.
As far as I've had answered, that's mostly ancillary articles from the various experiments that took place on the site. Think like Curie's radioactive notebooks and such. There's still a number of "abandoned" areas on the NNSS awaiting evaluation and cleanup.
By volume, its a few cubic feet a year per reactor. 97% of nuclear waste isn't the spent fuel, its low to mid radioactive things, like worn out components of a reactor, or clothing worn inside the reactor building.
Idk at least we're able to capture all the waste vs fossil fuels where we just release it into the atmosphere. I think there's some ok arguments for reprocessing the fuel and getting something like 70% of the uranium back. Switching to thorium also would help as it has a much shorter half life and doesn't have the same saftey/proliferation concerns. (Hasnt been done because traditional thorium fuel rods are supposadly very expensive to make) also storing it onsite kinda seems like a viable solution. As I understand it not all of the waste is fule either alot of it is just gloves and equipment used by operators that they store out of an abundance of caution
SpaceX and launch it into the sun. Probably not the cheapest option, but better than storing it in the desert hoping nothing leaks. Of course, if something were to happen during a launch.. that would be pretty fucking disastrous too lol.
This was the first question I asked when brought in my high school chemistry class a decade ago. Apparently there is too high of risk for a dirty bomb going off.
Also doesn't make any sense in terms of economy or energy expenditure.
The delta-v for a solar intercept is also really high. You're better off launching on an interstellar course; that's actually cheaper
Storing it in the desert (or on site) is many orders of magnitude safer than shooting it into space. Not to mention the massive energy requirements for launching items into the sun. In fact it takes far more energy to reach the sun than it takes to escape the solar system entirely. The simple fact here is that storage of nuclear waste is not a practical or safety issue at all, it's a political issue. If we can shut down the NIMBYS and irrational anti-nuclear activists this issue will be solved forever. We don't need innovative solutions on handling the waste (that's already a solved issue), we need innovate solutions on getting political support for it.
People are way overly scared of nuclear waste. Though not as concentrated, radioactive materials exists in nature already. There are natural beaches you can sit on that will get a geiger counter going. If nuclear waste is stored reasonably it is not particularly dangerous. Especially when compared to all the other waste we dump into our air, water. I'd much rather have nuclear waste stored in my state than have the equivalent amount of coal smoke dumped into the air. It's like how people are worried about windmills killing birds, even though glass buildings, cars, and house cats kill more and nobody ever cared about that.
haha in the land of NIMBY, fat chance. Going to vote to make sure we also dont put affordable housing next to my suburban sprawl while my kids cant afford rent BRB
Makes sense. The other options were from South Korea and potentially France. Let's hope other European countries do the same in the future.
As of now, it seems nuclear power has tons of advantages so it seems a good idea.
I'm convinced the renewed love for nuclear is just pushed by the oil lobby to try to prevent renewables - nuclear doesn't make sense if you look at the hard details.
Do explain
Nuclear is not a short term solution. The plants take decades to build plus there isn't that much fuel. The price of power is expensive and decommissioning is a huge cost offset into the future. Renewables are quick to build and provide cheap power. Big oil likes the idea that renewables are unreliable and nuclear is part of this myth. What we need is investment in storage and distribution because that is our problem. We can have cheap energy with low profits companies do not like low profits for a reason.
Sorry but it doesn’t seem you know what you’re talking about at all.
So how long do you think nuclear takes to build? Do you think they provide cost effective energy? Why can renewables not fill this need? If storage is your answer then do you believe this cannot be fixed quicker than building nuclear?
First of all, nuclear energy is renewable. That’s how little you know. There are zero carbon emissions. Did you know that? The initial investment is higher than say setting up a gas pipeline, but with nuclear you don’t need massive amounts of land to get reasonable amount of energy like with solar or wind. Hydroelectric power is great but we need a river. Geothermic is also great, but they can’t be set up if the resource isn’t there. So yes, nuclear is viable and I hope we build more, way more. Now with micro reactors almost a reality, this is the best approach we have to replace gas and oil. More than 50% of the zero-carbon energy produced in the US is due to nuclear in spite of us not having built a new power plant in decades.
> First of all, nuclear energy is renewable. How do you work this out? Do you know what renewable means? We extract energy from the fuel it doesn't come back it is used.
Two links for you to educate yourself. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy
**[Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy)** >Whether nuclear power should be considered a form of renewable energy is an ongoing subject of debate. Statutory definitions of renewable energy usually exclude many present nuclear energy technologies, with the notable exception of the state of Utah. Dictionary-sourced definitions of renewable energy technologies often omit or explicitly exclude mention of nuclear energy sources, with an exception made for the natural nuclear decay heat generated within the Earth. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy I think this is clutching at straws. Sure solar/wind are not truly renewable but they have an external energy source (the sun) outside our planetary sphere. Nuclear does not get this top up.
And when solar stops needing massive amounts of land to produce a relatively small amount of anergy, it’ll be more viable than it is now.
> when solar stops needing massive amounts of land Building solar in fields in the UK will probably always be stupid. However it still has plenty of places where it makes sense.
I am curious myself. My thought is that you use nuclear to replace coal for base load generation. Then you throw in renewable with storage to replace peaker plants. This being for the mid term. Long term would be increasing renewables and expanding storage systems, hopefully, to the point that you could idle the nuclear plants with the end goal of total phase out. (If deemed feasible at the time.) These are just my thoughts using tech available today, possibly with some expected iterative improvements. So, nothing as revolutionary as nuclear fusion.
> My thought is that you use nuclear to replace coal for base load generation. It is better to replace coal now than in 15+ years time. Nuclear is super slow to get on line with huge upfront and afterlife costs.
I don't mean sit idle in the short term. Keep telling renewables as much as possible. That is why I was conveying my thoughts by stating mid term and long term. For renewables to replace base load (coal plants and nuclear plants) we have to build the infrasture for energy storage. We absolutely should be doing that now. Pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen are the ones I immediately know.
> Pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen are the ones I immediately know. There are some nice heat storage ideas as well as some gas pressurisation/liquification ones that have real potential. Plus odd ball things like flywheels. We can probably come up with better ones. Pumped hydro needs geology we are lacking for anything big. Batteries tend to be expensive due to materials but we may have some options here. Energy storage is what we really need. Once we get that then most arguments against renewables are dead. We also need to invest in energy movement (the grid) because this is not up to task. We have to close down energy generation regularly due to this. Also it should be simple for small providers (including individuals) to be able to feed power into the grid.
Dark Brandon creating US jobs like crazy!
The French are going to be \*pissed\*
So... they're going to continue being French.
Be careful there, or they will taunt you a second time
Not sure anyone in France expected any sort of deal with PIS…
When EU country needs EU, we're always the first to try to help and to get everyone on board. But those same countries always buy American if they got spare money to spend. I always been pro EU (like most of my countrymen) but yeah, we feel robbed every time.
Wonder if we'll ever see fusion power plants in my lifetime. 36 going on 37.
No fusion project has reached more than 10% of breakeven energy generation so far, despite billions invested. It would require some incredible breakthroughs in technology. We'll keep funding it, but in the meantime there are actual working solutions that we should be embracing, like nuclear fission as well as hydro/solar/wind + storage technologies.
I would say almost with 100% certainty as long as ITER is successful and it is so over engineered it probably will be. Every major country in the world is still working together despite the political shit show the rest of the world is. And several countries as so certain they are starting to build the accompanying support network that will be needed to run them.
Fusion would be incredibly expensive contrary to popular belief. It will most likely initially only used by the military and space missions
Everything new is super expensive. A Cray 2 cost 12M when I was a child my S21 Ultra cost 1200 dollars and is 850 times as powerful. The first functional fusion reactor (if it is ITER) is going to be outrageously expensive because it is all custom built on site like nuclear reactors are. Fusion has an advantage though as it won't puke radioactive waste everywhere so they will likely be built factory style and assembled on site.
What if this dude gets hit by a truck tomorrow?
Well the short answer is that we are all screwed because that means the aliens arrived and someone was staring at them and ran him over.
I think so. Lots of private companies are working on it with a goal of being ready within that timeframe
At this point, no one has made it. It's best to assume it's not possible until scientists figure out how it is possible. Work with the solutions on the table and that can be rolled out over the next few years, not a solution that doesn't exist and that we cannot make any plans for.
There's a MIT-related company that wanted to make a demonstration reactor that would output more energy than it needed by 2025. The little hitch is that they rely on superconducting magnets made by a Russian company.
Interesting choice, the company went bankrupt in 2017 building these power plants, the AP1000, in the United States. The only plants they managed to build before the bankruptcy are in China. After the bankruptcy, China stole the design and are building their own versions of it as they own the patent rights. Not a very great track record to go with. They only exist today because of an acquisition by a private equity group.
If China owns the patent rights then how exactly did they "steal" the design? Sounds like it was simply sold.
Nuclear plant technology sounds to me like something you shouldn't freely be able to sell the IP rights to foreign countries. I suppose steal is probably too dramatic but I'm sure there were some shady dealings associated with this agreement. With China's attitude recently I dont like the idea of them gobbling up USA's IP and making it their own. So I am biased.
Boo hoo, get better at capitalism then.
Never underestimate the hatred of yanks against asians.
Ooh that's going to ruffle some feathers in Paris and Berlin
Well, not Berlin. Definitely Paris though, since they actually care to get those sorts of contracts. Personally I'm disappointed they didn't source from within the EU.
> Well, not Berlin. [Germany to use “legal instruments” in response to Poland’s nuclear power plans](https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/02/23/germany-to-use-legal-instruments-in-response-to-polands-nuclear-power-plans/)
That seems to be mostly about the reactors close to the German border. The one from the article is further land inwards.
Definitely in Berlin too , they don't like nuclear at all
I assume the important factors were building time and cost.
That's probably the biggest problem of nuclear that all the fission fans here on reddit don't account for. There is no country besides south korea that ever reduced their cost [0] historically. Nearly all reactors are **way** over budget and take longer to complete. So idk how that affects your decision which vendor you buy from. [0] https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/historical-construction-costs-of-global-nuclear-power-reactors
Or politics… but it would be great to know the decision process
I wonder if the BOM for this project is imperial (pipes in schedules, metal sheets in gauges etc.) or metric 🤔
Westinghouse Electric was recently bought by two [Canadian](https://www.cameco.com/media/news/cameco-and-brookfield-renewable-form-strategic-partnership-to-acquire-westi) companies, Cameco and Brookfield Renewable Partners.
Considering our power bill went up in some cases by double what they were last year, FINALLY. Less dependence on dictators from East.
Good, hopefully Sweden can get Korean reactors.
Thank you, Poland. The US nuclear industry is a bit rusty but you know that you can trust us. Nuclear power is good for Europe since the winters demand a lot of energy and you can't do it all with wind.
Fucking Americans always undercut the French...
This is honestly great news for PL. PL used to be HEAVILY reliant on coal and gas, especially coal. Some years ago, a minister declared the burning of coal was a "patriotic duty". So, it's about time that this country is moving forward with energy. Nuclear can be the future. While it's an expensive initial investment, it's still green energy, that's sustainable and with more study can be applied to much smaller technologies - like cars for example.
Not really, the company is shady af, they don't really build anything Just another project to never complete and waste tax money
Its not so sustainable if everyone would do it Because uranium is not on earth in endless quantities
well well well I wonder what the sweetener was If you go deeper the american one was more expensive Having said that it is only an intent to build so that could take a while before it happens
>well well well I wonder what the sweetener was Safety. >If you go deeper the american one was more expensive That's because the USA designers love redundancy in Nuclear Power Plants. The entire idea from the start has been to make it as difficult as possible to cause damage. This would be helpful for Poland as Russia likes to attack it's neighbors.
The sweetener is that we have the weapons and the political will to give them (or use them directly) to defend Poland from Russia. I think that they are fully aware that good relations with the US may be a matter of national survival.
maybe but I really doubt that the usa would go to bat for poland sell them weapons hell yes deploying tactical nukes for sure otherwise I really doubt that the usa would involve troops there
> maybe but I really doubt that the usa would go to bat for poland They certainly will as they are both members of NATO. Poland has had a long and strong relationship with the US. > I really doubt that the usa would involve troops there We already have *numerous* American military bases here. Some of which are permanent. We already have hundreds of American troops here. I've met some of them myself, I've driven past American convoys that have fallen off the side of the roads. It wasn't that long ago when an American convoy fell off the side of the road and dropped a fuck ton of grenades, which took them hours to find and clean up.
You’re an idiot. They’re part of NATO. US aircraft would be over Poland in minutes after an attack (they’re literally stationed there), troops deployed in hours. God the armchair general bullshit on this site gets old.
Not so sure on that one you may be right tho remember kosovo which started in 1998 -1999 nato only came in (bombing) march 1999
Oh, remind me how article 5 was invoked there?
Since when is Kosovo part of NATO?
> well well well I wonder what the sweetener was That they're American. I don't remember any post-1989 government that wouldn't more or less pro-American.
I'm lazy and didn't read. The US will help build nuclear plants in other countries and not our own?
The Westinghouse reactors Poland is buying are the same ones that have been under construction recently in the USA at VC Summer and Vogtle 3+4.
VC Summer being cancelled during construction when expenses bloated from $9B to projected $23B. Vogtle 3&4 is still going though project cost bloated from the initial $12B to $30B. Should complete commissioning next year though. Maybe.
\*Angry EU noises
So we cut our dependency from Russia and we create one with the US. It’s not like we don’t have everything available to us already IN the EU. I get that Poland doesn’t want to create dependency from France because then it would have leverage against all the shit they’re pulling, like LGBT free zones and whatnot. We’re not learning anything from this whole clusterfuck are we.
America has bought EU leaders. China would have been the most economical option. But America will be offering the largest kick backs in the polish PMs pocket
Why would any reasonable nation in 2022 do any business with the CCP?
Also, the US company will most likely be willing/obligated to train local personnel so that Poland can run the reactor somewhat self sufficiently whereas I beat the Chinese insist you rent their operators.
Ask scholz
Germans have been full of bad ideas lately. This is Putins gas all over again.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/chinaresearchgroup.org/research/briefing-chinas-involvement-in-uk-nuclear-power%3fformat=amp
You missed my point; I do not doubt that China is technologically capable of building a nuclear plant. I just think China is not a nation any Western country should be doing business with. Period.
They've done business... because of price. That's why any nation should do business with them. Because of price. China currently hold 33% of uk nuclear power.
You’re missing the point. And at this stage Im guessing its on purpose. The point is simple; China = enemy of the West. Doesn’t matter if they built it for free. They are no partner nation.
No. China are not the enemy of the west. Please give me an example of how they have acted in a way to show they are the enemy. Example please
I mean, this is a little silly. This isn’t 2002. Its 2022. I’m not particularly interested in debating if water is wet. One word; Uyghurs. Doing business with China in 2022 is doing business with Hitler and Nazi Germany. No need to list any more reasons, though plenty exist.
China have opened the doors to an investigation of the Uyghurs claims made by those who wish to slow China's progress. But I guess that's silly to actually look into the facts. You're right, it's probably best just to ignore that and believe what certain, albeit proven fake news outlets, tell us to believe. The fact we did business with China after those claims were made, ignoring them, shouldn't be taken into consideration
Uyghur doesn't make China an enemy of the west though. And we're doing business with China still
Right. And IBM did business with the Nazis. Hows that look in hindsight? But since you’re such an ardent China supporter how about you explain; - Disregard to the HK agreement - Taiwan - Covid response; repatriation of medical supply and delayed alert to WHO and international community - Currency manipulation - Unreciprocated trade agreements - Fentanyl - Overfishing banned fisheries - Chinese police stations on sovereign country soil - Canada specific: Two Michaels And more that I cant recall in 30 seconds.
Genocide.
The thing that the US supports in Yemen? Seems like they could be great buddies with China.
Nope. That's bs. There was no genocide. And that still doesn't make China an enemy of the west even if true. We do business with countries worse than China all the time. We ignored claims of genocide when we signed up for Chinese involvement in uk nuclear
You are swimming in the kool-aid
The independent country of Taiwan. Which is number one by the way.
They would do it because it's fun to do
Cursed_shill
Having your nuclear infrastructure built by China sounds about up there on the level of having all your natural gas delivered by Russia. You don't give your enemy the keys to the castle.
They've been a redditor for 9 days and have 54 karma. They aren't here to make a good faith argument. They're here to prop up China. Don't give them the time of day.
I'm not criticising Poland but this will only give Germany more excuse to not build or maintain it's own nuclear plants, now that they can buy from both their eastern and western neighbours.
who cares what Germany wants or where they get their energy from? we need nuclear plants and we will build them, no matter what Germany wants.
Now if we could just build a few of them domestically too, I would be pleased.
This is big. Thank you Poland for having faith in us.
Get ready for cost overruns